One of the criticisms sometimes made of Jinnah (by Louis Fisher, for example) is that Jinnah was not a religious man. In this selection, Abdul Qayyum demonstrates how the problem of Jinnah’s alleged lack of interest in religion is handled in Pakistan. We are given a brief discussion of the characteristic of the Islamic reform movement led by Sayed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) and Muhammad Iqbal (1873-1938), which helped to create some degree of consensus among “modernized” Muslims as to the significance of Islamic values for twentieth-century problems. Qayyum sees Jinnah as representatives of those who followed the reforms of Sayed Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Iqbal.

In 1875, Sayed Ahmad founded the Muhammadan Educational Conference, and remained the moving spirit behind it until his death. Even at the age of seventy-eight he would enthusiastically sit for six hours a day at the annual session of the Conference at Shahjahanpur, guiding its deliberations as secretary. The conference held its annual session in different parts of the country and aroused enthusiasm among the Muslim masses for western education and social reforms.

Sayed Ahmad’s efforts showed promise of success when, nearly six months after his retirement from service, Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India, performed the opening ceremony of the Muslim Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, on 8th January 1877. The M.A.O. College, which later grew into the famous Muslim University of Aligarh, imparted, through English as the medium of instruction, knowledge of western arts and sciences, together with instructions on Islamic thought and philosophy.

Sayed Ahmad filled the big void created in the life of the Muslim community by the disappearance of the Muslim rule. But he did more. His long life, spanning almost a century, bridged the gulf between the Medieval and the Modern Islam in India. Himself, a relic of the palmy days of the Great Mughals, he ushered in a new era. He gave the Indian Muslims a new prose, a new approach to their individual and national problems, and built up an organization which could carry on his work. Before this there was all disintegration and decay. He rallied together the Indian Muslims, and became the first prophet of their new nationhood.

*********************

Born at Sialkot, Dr. Sir Mohammad Iqbal (1873 – 1938) received his early education under Shams-ul-Ulema Mir Hasan, whose memory has been enshrined by the poet in beautiful verse. For higher education, Iqbal moved to Lahore in 1895, and after taking his M.A. Degree, joined the local Government College as Lecturer. In Lahore, he came under the influence of Sir Thomas Arnold, who had left Aligarh and had joined Government College, Lahore, as Professor of Philosophy. On Sir Thomas advice, Iqbal proceeded to Europe for higher studies in 1905.

For the next three years, Iqbal’s thought developed in the libraries of Cambridge, London and Munich. He studied philosophy at Cambridge, took his doctorate degree on the Development of Persian Metaphysics from Munich, and was called to the Bar in London. He studied the old masters of the East and the West, discussed philosophy and metaphysics with the renowned Dr. McTaggart, and conversed on literature and Islamics with Professors Nicholson and Browne.

*********************

It was Iqbal who was destined to play the historical role in the reconstruction of Islamic thought; he brought to bear upon Islamic institutions, which he respected no less than any Muslim of this time, a searching analysis of their fundamentals; he reinterpreted Islam as a dynamic rather than a static religion, and liberal rather than a reactionary force. In fact, in Iqbal’s view, Islam would cease to be Islam if its fundamentals were not living enough to allow a continuous process of fresh experiments and new adjustments to changes in society. It was the dynamic view of Islam that best fitted Iqbal for a happy synthesis of the East and the West in him.

The vision of a “new world” for the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent was projected by Iqbal when he acclaimed that the future of Muslims, with their distinct cultural and spiritual urges, lay in separate homeland. Presiding over the 1930 session of the Muslim League at Allahabad, he declared that he would “like to see the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan, amalgamated into a single State….”

Iqbal was the first to see the vision of Pakistan. The role he played in promoting that intellectual revolution among the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, which heralded the emergence of Muslims as a separate political force, conscious of their national destiny, decidedly constituted his most valuable contribution of the Muslim cause.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said about him: “To me Iqbal was friend, guide and philosopher, and during the darkest moments throughout which the Muslim League had to go, stood like a rock and never flinched for one single moment….Iqbal was the bugler of Muslim thought and culture. He was the singer of the finest poetry represents the true aspirations of the Muslims. It will remain an inspiration for us and for generations after us.”

Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) personified the liberal spirit of Islam released by Sayed Ahmad Khan and Amir Ali, as well as the dynamic philosophy of Iqbal with its emphasis on relentless action. His able leadership of their struggle for freedom, culminating in the creation of Pakistan as an independent State, brought unprecedented hope and vitality to the Muslims of the sub-continent, producing in its wake a whole cultural renaissance and youthful idealism.

Jinnah’s pre-occupation with political issues left him little time to devote himself to writing; but his speeches and sayings have been compiled by his admirers into a series of volumes, and they are all permeated with a liberal outlook.

Like Iqbal, Jinnah believed in Islam as a dynamic religion. “The discipline of the Ramzan fast and prayers will culminate today in an immortal meekness of the heart before God, “he said in a broadcast speech on Eid day, “but it shall not be the meekness of a week heart, and they who would think so are doing wrong both to God and to the Prophet, for it is the outstanding paradox of all religions that the humble shall be the strong, and it is of particular significance in the case of Islam; for Islam, as you all know, really means action. This discipline of Ramzan was designed by our Prophet to give us the necessary strength for action….”

Religion for Jinnah implied not duty to God, but to Mankind. “Man has indeed been called God’s caliph in the Quran, and if that description of man is to be of any significance, it imposes upon us a duty to follow Quran, to behave towards others as God behaves towards his mankind, in the widest sense of word, his duty is to love and to forebear. And this, believe me, is not a negative duty but a positive one. If we have any faith and love for tolerance towards God’s children, to whatever community they belong, we much act upon that faith in the daily round of our simple duties and unobtrusive pieties. It is a great ideal and it will demand effort and sacrifice. Not seldom will your minds be assailed by doubts. There will be conflicts not only material, which you perhaps will be able to resolve with courage, but spiritual also. We shall have to face them; and if today, when our hearts are humble we do not imbibe that higher courage to do so, we never shall.”

Whenever Jinnah got an opportunity to speak on religion, he advocated a rational approach. “In the pursuit of truth and the cultivation of beliefs,” he said, “we should be guided by our rational interpretation of the Quran, and if our devotion to truth is single-minded, we shall, in our own measure, achieve our goal. In the translation of this truth into practice, however, we shall be content with so much, as so much only, as we can achieve without encroaching on the rights of others, while at the same time nor ceasing our efforts always to achieve more. “In another context, he remarked: “The test of greatness is not the culture of stone and pillar and pomp but the culture of humanity, the culture of equality….and only a man who is dead to all the finer instincts of humility and civilization can call a religion based on determination and exploitation a heritage.”

Jinnah was outspoken in his condemnation of reactionary elements which generated retrograde tendencies in religion. Dealing with the contribution of the Pakistan movement to our national life, he said: “We have to a great extent to free our people from the most undesirable reactionary elements. We have in no small degree removed the unwholesome influence and fear of a certain section that used to pass off as Maulana and Maulvis. We have made efforts to make our women with us in our struggle….

He championed the cause of womanhood, advocating for women an equal share with men in social and national life. “In the great task of building the nation and maintaining its solidarity, women have a most valuable part to play. They are the prime architects of the character of the youth who constitute the backbone of the State. I know that in the long struggle for the achievement of Pakistan, Muslim women have stood solidly behind their men. In the bigger struggle for the building up of Pakistan that now lies ahead let it not be said that the women of Pakistan had lagged behind or failed in their duty.”

The liberalism of Jinnah freed the minds of the Indo-Pakistan Muslims, turning their intellectual activities towards tackling traditional Islamic ideas and ideals in terms of modern standards and requirements. Thus the final phase of the intellectual movement among the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent that was ushered in by Iqbal, began to be re-enforced by Muslim thinkers under the inspiring leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. With the growing strength of Pakistan that phase is gathering momentum and spreading in every widening concentric circles, permeated with the spirit of both the Seer and the Leader.

The huge land mass of Balochistan rising steadily from the coastal plains of the sea of Arabia to the eerie heights of Quetta, and then descending in an undulating manner up to the fringe of the North-West Frontier Province, covers a little over 125,000 sq. miles constituting almost 43% of the total area of Pakistan. Another 45,000 sq. miles of Balochistan territory lie in the neighbouring state of Iran and smaller region in southern Afghanistan.1

With the advent of British colonial rule over India, Balochistan came under colonial influence in 1876 and was portioned among Iranians and the British. The Eastern part of Balochistan was further divided into British Balochistan, Balochistan States, while a part of Seistan was given to Afghanistan. The areas of Derajat and Jacobabad (Khan Garh) was demarcated and given to British India.

British imperialists used Balochistan as a military base to check the extension policy of Tsarist Russia against India.2 Balochistan was denied almost all forms of reforms which over the years, since the turn of the century, were introduced in other parts of India.

Despite being a separate administrative unit, Balochistan was not include in the list of provinces because it did not enjoy the status of a province. It was an administrative unit headed by the Agent to Governor General. This implied that the reforms introduced in the recognised provinces of British India were not introduced in Balochistan.3

The Quaid-i-Azam was aware of the vexing problems of Balochistan. He had demanded reforms in Balochistan in his famous “Fourteen Points”. He pleaded that Balochistan should be brought in the line with other provinces of India.

About the late twenties in Balochistan there were curbs on expression of open political opinions and there was no press. In 1927, Abdul Aziz Khurd and Nasim Talwi started a newspaper called “Balochistan” in Delhi. Yousuf Ali Khan Magsi, Sardar of the Magsi tribe, wrote an article for a Lahore newspaper in 1929 which he entitled “Fariad-e-Balochistan” or, “The Wail from Balochistan”. In May, 1939 he produced a pamphlet called “Balochistan ki Awaz”, or “The Voice of Balochistan”, specially for the British Parliament in London. In February, 1934, Yousuf Ali visited England in pursuit of his political objectives and both going and coming he visited Quaid-i-Azam at Bombay.

Muslim League was another political organization to sponsor the cause of Balochistan for the creation of a separate province for Balochistan.

The foundations of the Muslim League in Baluchistan were laid by a young known lawyer of Balochistan by the name of Qazi Isa. It was in 1938 that Isa paid a visit to Quaid-i-Azam at Bombay on his return from his studies in England and was so impressed that he accepted the invitation of the Quaid-i-Azam to form and organise the Muslim League in Balochistan.

Apart from the other activities and visits of Muslim League leaders, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah himself visited Balochistan many times. In the middle of 1934, Quaid-i-Azam paid a visit to Balochistan and spent about two months there. In a public session of the League Conferences at Quetta, Qazi Isa made a dramatic and emotional gesture. Presenting the Quaid-i-Azam with a Sword, reportedly belonging to Ahmed Shah Abdali, he said:

Throughout history, the sword had been the constant companion of the Muslims. When the Muslims did not have an Amir, this sword was lying in safe custody. Now that you have taken over as the Amir of this nation, I hand over this historic sword to you. This has always been used in defence, in your safe hands also, it will be used only for this purpose.

On this occasion, the Quaid-i-Azam paid a highly successful four days visits to Kalat on the personal invitation of Khan Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, the ruler of Kalat. In the meantime, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan went on pressing in the Central Assembly to give constitutional reforms to Baluchistan and ultimately succeeded when his resolution was passed by the Assembly in March 1944.4 In the same year, when British were involved in the second World War, General R.C. Money submitted a memorandum, “Post-War Reconstruction Balochistan.”

In the memorandum, it was suggested, that “Balochistan is the right place for a considerable imperial garrison after the war. It was added that after the transfer of power in British India, “Balochistan” is not part of British India.” The memorandum was appreciated by Amry, as shown by his reply to Money on 18 November 1944 and his letter to Wavell, dated 23 November 1944.5

The Allies won the World War II on 2 September 1945. Ultimately, on 24 March 1946, the Cabinet Mission comprising three Cabinet Ministers arrived at Delhi presented the Partition plan of India on 16 May 1946. After the announcement of Paritition plan the tempo of political activity and polarization was between contending parties and factions gained momentum. Balochistan was of vital importance to the future of Pakistan as a country and people and, Mr. Jinnah was keen to make Balochistan a part and parcel of Pakistan. Conversely, the people who were averse to the prospect of the Indian Muslims securing an independent homeland, Nehru and Mountbatten, for instance, created all types of difficulties for the Muslim League. The foremost issue was: Which of the two Constituent Assemblies will Balochistan join, that is, of India or Pakistan. Moreover, that would be the status of Balochistan states on the lapse of British paramountcy? Would the leased areas be restored to the Khan of Kalat? What will be the future of the Princely States, their rulers and, so also that of the Tribal Territories in Balochistan?

The draft Proposal as revised by Cabinet Committee upto 8 May said:

In British Balochistan, the members of the Shahi Jirga other than those members who are nominated as Sardars of Kalat State, and non-officials members of the Quetta Municipality, will meet to decide which of the three options in para 4 above they choose. The meeting will also elect a representative to attend the Constituent Assembly selected.

Nehru objected to the proposal. He said:

It leaves the future of the Province to one man chosen by a group of Sardars and nominated persons who obviously represent a vested semi-feudal element. Baluchistan has an importance as a strategic frontier of India and its future cannot be dealt with in this partial and casual manner.

He added: “The future of Balochistan raised many strategic problems and the way at present envisaged is a very casual way of dealing with an important frontier area. Finally, he suggested that this case be deferred until the picture in the rest of India got clearer. This was not agreed to by the Viceroy”.

Whereas the Quaid-i-Azam emphasized that a democratic machinery might be devised to ensure free and fair expression of the will of the people, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, on behalf of the Muslim League, proposed a plebiscite. Any genuine democratic vote would satisfy the Muslims. He and the Quaid were very confident of winning Balochistan by the democratic method. They did not create any fuss, like Nehru.

Lord Mountbatten differed with both Jinnah and Nehru. He thought that in Baluchistan Tribal System, democratic mehhods would not work, and the prevailing system could not be altered in a haste.

Later His Majesty’s Government (HMG) revised the proposal and the revised draft was studied, and different proposals from the Quaid-i-Azam, Pundit Nehru and Sir Geoffery Prior, the Agent to the Governor General (AGG) in Balochistan, were put up to the HMG. Finally it was decided to hold a referendum in Balochistan on June 30, 1947 in Shahi Jirga excluding the Sardars nominated by the Kalat state and non-officials members of Quetta Municipality. That would decide the future affiliations of Balochistan.

An extraordinary joint Session of the Shahi Jirga was held on 30 June 1947 to decide the crucial issue. To the dismay of the Congress, 54 members of the Shahi Jirga and Quetta Municipality, voted en-bloc to join the new Constituent Assembly to be set up in Pakistan.

The credit, in a large measure, for the convincing success of the Muslim League in these circumstances goes to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Balochistan Provincial Muslim League who successfully countered the Congress propaganda.6

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s role, first as the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, and subsequently as the leader of the Muslims, during 1936-1947, supported the cause of Balochistan and demanded accession from the Khan. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah regarded Balochistan as his last resort in case of the failure of the demand for Pakistan.

With the lapse of the British paramountcy in 1947, the Khanate of Balochistan became an independent sovereign state. The Khan, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, announced independence in a public speech on 15 August 1947. Soon after the promulgation of the constitution, elections were held at the Kalat state National Party won 39 out of a total 51 seats on Lower House. The rest of the seats went to independent candidates, who supported the cause of the National Party.

On 13, December, the Khan summoned the Lower House to discuss, the official language, the Sharia (Islamic Law), and relations between the Khanate of Balochistan and Pakistan, with special reference to accession.7

In September 1947, the Prime Minister of Kalat, Nawabzada M. Aslam, and the Foreign Minister, D.Y. Fell travelled to Karachi to discuss the leased areas, under the Kalat-Pakistan Agreement of August 1947. The meetings between the officials of the two states were not fruitful, due to policy of the Pakistani Government, which insisted on an unconditional accession of the Khanate to Pakistan. On 20 September 1947, Mr. Ikramullah, the Pakistan Foreign Secretary wrote a letter to Aslam, the Prime Minister of Khanate, urging the accession of the Khanate and, meanwhile, the president of the British Balochistan Muslim League, Qazi M. Isa, met the Khan and conveyed to him a message from Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Governor-General of Pakistan, who extended an invitation for the Khan to come to Karachi to discuss future relations between the Khanate and Pakistan. Before the Khan’s visit to Karachi in October 1947, he discussed all possible courses of action with his Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.

The Khan went to Karachi on Jinnah’s invitation with a draft treaty which he wanted to use as a basis for negotiations with the Government of Pakistan. The draft treaty proposed by the Khan was aimed at entering into a treaty relationship with Pakistan.8

On his arrival in Karachi, the Khan was not received by the Governor General nor by the Prime Minister, because Jinnah advised him to accede the Khanate to Pakistan and stated that he could propose no better course than accession.

Nevertheless, the Khan refused the demand of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and said, “As Balochistan is a land of numerous tribes, the people there must be consulted in the affairs prior to any decision”. The Khan promised Jinnah to reply after consulting the parliament of the Khanate. On December 12, 1947, a Session of the Darul-Awam was summoned by the Khan to discuss the matter of accession. The house after a debate adopted the following resolution unanimously on December 14, 1947.

Relations with Pakistan should be established as between two sovereign states through a treaty based upon friendship and not by accessions.

On January 4, 1948 the Darul-Umra also passed the same resolution. The Prime Minister Aslam visited Karachi with a copy of the proceedings of the parliament. He met Jinnah and discussed the matter of accession. On his return to Kalat in February, he brought a letter from Jinnah, dated 2 February 1948, addressed to the Khan. In this letter, once again Jinnah repeated the demand to join Pakistan.

On February 11, 1948, Quaid-i-Azam came to Sibi, situated in former British Balochistan, where a meeting was arranged between the Khan and Jinnah on the evening of the following day. On the 13, they had a second meeting at Dadar—the winter capital of the Khanate. Another meeting fixed for the 14th, had to be cancelled due to the sudden “illness” of the Khan.

Jinnah was disappointed by the behaviour of Khan and his parliament. On March 9, 1948, it was communicated to the Khan that “His Excellency had decided to cease to deal personally with Kalat state negotiations, to decide the future relations of Pakistan and Kalat.” Col. S.B. Shah was assigned to deal with the Khanate’s affairs, with the help of Aslam, who knew the internal conflicts and rivalries among the Khan and his chief, including feudatory chiefs, Mir Bai Khan, Gichki, Nawab of Mekran (Brother-in-Law of Khan) Ghulam Qadir, Jam of Las Bela, and Mir Habibullah Nusherwani, Nawab of Kharan. They met Jinnah on 17 March 1948, and informed his that “if Pakistan was not prepared to accept their offer of accession immediately they would be compelled to take other steps for their protection against the Khan of Kalat’s aggressive actions.”

After their meeting with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s Cabinet met in an emergency session discuss the request the chief of Balochistan. The cabinet decided to accept the offer in order to put pressure on the Khan for accession. On 17 March Jinnah accepted the accession.

On 18 March, the Pakistan Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a press Statement, announcing that Pakistan had accepted the accession of Mehran, Kharan, and Lesbela, with the “accession” of these areas, Kalat lost its connection with Iran and Afghanistan and was left without any outlet to the sea.

After the accession of these states. The Joint Secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Col. S.B. Shah approached the Baloch chiefs Wadera Bangulzai, Sardar Shahwani, Sardar Sanjarani, and offered them an autonomous status if they accede to Pakistan. Meanwhile Sardar Raisani offered his cooperation to Col. Shah.9

Nevertheless, the Khan saw two alternatives:

To leave the palace and to take refuge in the mountains in order to fight.

To accept the demand of accession.

The first alternative was opposed by Fell, and supported by nationalists. Khan agreed with proposed of Mr. Fell and saw the “wisdom” of declaring “accession”, without the approval of the parliament. On 28 March 1948, he informed the Government of Pakistan about his decision and the Khanate became a part of Pakistan.10

The above historic picture was taken when Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan) visited Allama Mashriqi (founder of Khaksar Tehrik) at a Khaksar Camp in Karol Bagh (Delhi) on October 16, 1939.

'He labored at his briefs day and night. There was never a word of gossip about his private life. A figure like that invites criticism particularly in this lazy East where we find it easier to forgive a man for his faults rather than for his virtues'. A comment of a law colleague on Jinnah during his early days as a Barrister in Bombay.

Mrs Sarojini Naidu was Governor of Uttar Pradesh after Partition. She was a great admirer of Mr Jinnah and once remarked: "He is a future Viceroy if this policy of Indianization continues". She was not far from the truth.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was one of the most striking fascinating and remarkable personalities of modern world history. Possessed of excellent qualities of pen, mind and heart, he played a very significant role in changing the course of history and destinies of men in South Asia, having immense impact on the world history which scholars and historians have not yet full realised. The American writer Stanley Wolpert’s most quoted remarks1 do not fully convey the real significance of the Quaid’s role in modern history. The fact is that the Quaid’s role was more significant than that has been described by Wolpert. He did not only create a nation state on the basis of Muslim separatism in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, he also struggled hard to build it on strong footings as is evident from his dynamic role as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. Despite his rapidly declining health he assiduously worked and endeavoured his best for introducing basic reforms and giving guide-lines in each sector of Pakistan’s polity and society.2

The Quaid, in fact, was very optimistic about the brilliant future of Pakistan. He did want to make Pakistan an exemplary Islamic welfare state. He did stand for introducing Islamic system of government in Pakistan. But it is matter of great regret that some Pakistani scholars and critics still maintain that the Quaid was least concerned with the Islamic system of government. Instead, he stood, in their opinion, for a secular system of government in Pakistan. For example late Justice Muhammad Munir, while writing his book on Pakistan toward the end of 1970’s asserted that “there can be no doubt that Jinnah was a secularist”3 and “The pattern of government which the Quaid had in mind was a secular democratic government.”4 Similarly, Rahat Saadul Kairi, while writing his book on Quaid-i-Azam in the mid ninties also claimed that Jinnah never wanted to make Pakistan an Islamic state.5 “His idea of Pakistan” says he “was of a modern, liberal, secular and democratic state.”6 This is fundamentally a wrong conception. This is rather an attempt to besmear and tarnish the Quaid’s fair image by distorting facts.

The assertions made by M. Munir and S.R. Khari are merely based on speculations and not on solid grounds. The Quaid’s speeches and statements given in support of these assertions have been generally misconstrued. Particular the Quaid’s well-known speech in the newly established Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 on which these critics mainly base their arguments,7 has been absolutely misinterpreted by them. The speech in question was a policy statement, emphasising some basic issues faced by the newly born state of Pakistan. The Quaid made the Constituent Assembly to realise its new position, status and responsibilities. Secondly, he laid emphasis on the eradiction of social evils such as bribery and corruption, jobbery and nepotism, hoarding and black-marketing then prevailing in the country. Thirdly, he put stress on forging equality, fraternity and unity among all sections of Pakistani society, by ending all racial and religious differences, without which Pakistan’s progress was not possible.8

A careful and deep study of this speech shows that the Quaid was not propounding any sort of secularism by advising particularly the religious sections of the people to bury their past in order to live together peacefully as good citizens of the newly-born state of Pakistan.

In fact, the situation in which the speech was made must be borne in mind. No doubt, Pakistan had been established. But the anti-Pakistan forces were fully at work to destroy it at the shage of its very inception. The communal feelings were tense, emotions ran high, resulting in horrible communal riots and massacres at a very large scale. The most parts of the subcontinent were in the grip of civil war. The Muslim villages, mohallas, towns and cities were burning: the people were passing through rivers of blood and fire. The Sikh, Hindu and British Neroes were rejoicing.9

In the midst of such grave and horrendous circumstances the Quaid’s speech was definitely a message of hope and peace. Its contents and tenor clearly indicate that it was mostly meant to cool down the exasperated communal feelings on both sides of the border, which was certainly statesman-like performance on the part of the Quaid.10 He was not discarding the two nation theory by saying that “the Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims.” These remarks did not mean that both the Hindus and the Muslims would lose their separate identities. Simply both were urged upon to work together for Pakistan as its equal citizens. If these remarks meant otherwise even then it makes no differences as the marks seem purely of a temporary nature and were never repeated by the Quaid in his subsequent speeches and statements. Likewise, the Quaid was not negating any ideological basis of Pakistan by saying: “If you (Hindus and Muslims etc.) will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed; is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.”11 Again, the Quaid was not deviating from any basic principle of Islamic ideology while assuring religious freedom to all Pakistanis, remarking: “You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan.”12

The fact is that speaking in such terms, the Quaid was not violating any tradition or norm or principle of Islam. He was actually acting according to the injunctions of the Holy Quran.

The Holy Quran is not in favour of using force in converting peoples to Islam. It categorically says, “There is no compulsion in Islam.”13 The Holy Quran has equal consideration for the places of worship of the peoples of different faiths. In the course of discourse, it clearly remarks: “For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of other, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned would assuredly have been pulled down. Verilly Allah helpeth one who helpth Him.”14 Granting freedom of worship to the peoples of different faiths in Pakistan, the Quaid, in fact, was serving the purpose of the Holy Quran.

Besides, the Quaid was following in letter and spirit the Hoy Prophet’s (Peace be upon him) commands such as “Beware! Whosoever is cruel and hard on such people (i.e. contractees) or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can endure, or realises any thing from them against their free will. I shall myself be a complainant against him on the day of judgement.”15

Further more, the Quaid was really following the principle and traditions set up through treaties by the Holy Prophet and the Pious Caliphs regarding the equal treatment with the non-Muslims. Some relevant lines particularly of the famous treaty made by Hazrat Umar (15 A.H.) with the non-Muslims of Jerusalem may be noted here:

The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in anyway. There shall be no compulsion on them in the matter of religion, or shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion.16

The non-Muslims really enjoyed equal rights and status with Muslims in the Islamic state. Their lives, properties and places of worship were considered as sacred as those of the Muslims.17 And the Quaid was fully aware of the spirit of all these and such other Islamic teachings, principles and traditions: he could not be expected to injure the feelings of the non-Muslims in his very inaugural speech. Of course, as a just and benevolent ruler and founder of a new nation, he spoke and spoke masterly using the idiom and expression of civilized founders of dynasties or nations or empires in history.

Like his inaugural speech in the Constituent Assembly, some of his interviews with foreign correspondents, broadcast talks to the world nations and official address in the formal meeting occasionally arranged by certain foreign embassies have also been misunderstood and mis-interpreted. No doubt, in such interviews, talks and addresses, the Quad had to speak but delicately, formally and diplomatically, even some time admiring some foreign system of government.

For example replying to the speech of the first ambassador of the Republic of France to Pakistan on April 9, 1948, the Quaid formally remarked, “In common with other nations, we in Pakistan have admired the high principles of democracy that form the basis of your great State.”18 But this and such other formal and diplomatic statements do not present him as a “secularist” or as a supporter of the establishment of any Western system of government in Pakistan. The Quaid preferred Islamic democracy to Western democracy, as is evident from his pronouncement. Addressing some naval officials at Malir on February 21, 1948, he observed:

You have fought many a battle on the far-flung battlefields of the globe to rid the world of the Fascist menace and make it safe for democracy. Now you have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy. Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil.19

Anyhow, before going further, we must understand these questions. What is a secularist? What is secularism? What is western or modern democracy, after all?

In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, a secularist has been described as “an adherent of secularism”20 while about secularism the same dictionary records, “The doctorine that morality should be based solely on regard to well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in future state.”21 It means that a secularist is a person who does not believe in God and the world hereafter. Commonly such a person is called atheist.

The fact is that the Quaid was not a secularist. On the contrary, he was a staunch Muslim, a great believer in God, a true lover of the Holy Propher (peace be upon him), an enthusiastic supporter and exponent of Shariat laws as is evident from his whole historic background.

We know it well that he joined Lincoln’s Inn because there, on the main entrance, the name of the Prophet was included in the list of the great Law-givers of the world.”22 He spoke of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), as a great statesman and a great sovereign.23 “His appreciation of the Prophet” (peace be upon him) writer Hector Bolitho, “was realistic perhaps his political conscience, as a Muslim, had already begun to stir, while he was in England.”24 So much so that at a very early stage he had started his public career by attending the meetings of Anjum-i-Islam of Bombay which definitely stood for the promotion and protection of Muslim rights.25 And later on as a lawyer and legislator, he took great interest in safeguarding and promoting the Sharia laws. His role in piloting the well-known “Mussalman Wakf Validating Bill” on March 17, 1911, in the Imperial Legislative Council, and then constantly and single-handedly working for its ultimate enactment in March, 1913, was really one of the most glaring achievements in the very beginning of Quaid’s public career.26 Similarly in the subsequent years he continued to serve the cause of Islam.27 The Quaid, in fact believed in oneness of God, Prophet and Muslim millat. He repeatedly expressed it in the course of his speeches and statements. On one occasion he said: “We Mussalmans believe in one God, one Book – the Holy Quran – and one Prophet. So we must stand united as one Nation.”28 Likewise on another occasions he spoke thus, “It is the Great Book, Quran that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we get on and on there will be more and more oneness – One God, one Book, one Prophet, and one Nation.”29 The fact is that the Quaid was a great admirer of Islam, its tenets as well as its government system while on the contrary, he was a great critic particularly of the Western parliamentary system of government.

But what is the spirit and meaning of the Western democracy? Theoretically, the Western democracy has been generally considered as the government of the people by the people for the people. But in words of the Quaid western democracy did not exist anywhere in the world in the strict sense of the word.”30 On the contrary, it widespread use and application to every sort of government and institution has confused its initial spirit and meanings. No wonder if the western intellectualism has failed to properly define the term modern democracy. “Discussion about democracy”, records the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, are intellectually worthless because we do not know what we are talking about.”31 Hence democracy, the same source records” is harder to pin down.”32 Even the British parliamentarian of the calibre of Winston Churchill (1875 – 1965) bitterly criticised democracy. He remarks, “Democracy is the worst possible form of government except all others that have been tried.” 33

Whatever the case may be, the Quaid was a great critic of western democracy, even though he himself worked under this system in undivided India. He often criticised it in the course of his speeches in the Legislative Assembly debates.34 He bitterly spoke against it during the proceedings of the Round Table Conferences (1930-32).35 Besides, in his well known article on “The Constitutional Maladies in India” published in the Time and Tide (London) in January 1940 he strongly criticised the ills of the western democracy and rightly considered it as most unsuitable to united India.36 Speaking in a meeting of the Muslim University Union Aligarh, on March 10, 1941, he observed,“ I have asserted on numerous occasions that democratic parliamentary system of government they have in England and other western countries is entirely unsuited to India.”37 Because western democracy means majority rule and in undivided India it meant a Hindu rule as the Hindus were in a perpetual majority which was surely not in the interest of the Muslims who were in a perpetual minority. Speaking on the occasion of the historic session of All-India Muslim League held at Lahore in March, 1940, when the Lahore resolution was passed, the Quaid “exposed the barren and absolutist character of democracy which the Congress High Command wished to impose on the whole of India. This, in his opinion, would “only mean Hindu Raj” and “the complete destruction of what is most precious of Islam.”38

Not to speak of the Quaid, no sensible Muslim leader could favour the introduction or application of any western system of democracy in India. Otherwise, it would have been a complete negation of Muslim separatism on the basis of which a separate, independent and sovereign Muslim state was demanded.

The Quaid wanted to establish a free Muslim state in order “to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our ideal and according to the genius of our people.”39 While addressing the Muslim University Union, Aligarh in March 1941, the Quaid stressed that Pakistan was the only solution of the Indian problem “if you want to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country.”40 The Quaid quite clear in his mind. “Let me live”, he said to Hindus in November 1942, “according to my history in the light of Islam, my tradition, culture and language, and do the same in your zones.”41

The Quaid indeed wanted to introduce Islamic system of democracy in Pakistan. Speaking in the meeting of the All-India Muslim League Working Committee held in Delhi in March 1943, the Quaid, while replying to a controversial point with regard to “the future system of government, maintained that “We want a Muslim homeland wherein the Muslims will be free to choose their own government and conduct their affairs according to their tradition and genius, driving inspirations from the fundamental principles of Islam, based on brotherhood, equality and fraternity of man.”42

The point under discussion can be further elaborated by referring to one Maulvi Muhammad Munawarruddin’s meeting with the Quaid in March 1943, years before independence Maulvi Sahib discussed with the Quaid the system of government to be introduced in Pakistan after its birth. After the meeting M.S. Toosy, a close associate of the Quaid inquired from Manuwaruddin about the discussion. “His conclusion”, says Toosy, “was that when Pakistan would be established, the Quaid-i-Azam would enforce the laws of Shariat and the Constitution would be framed according to the Islamic principles based on the Quran.”43

Explaining the creed of Pakistan to Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan early in 1943, the Quaid said that Pakistan would be based where we will be able to train and bring up Muslim intellectuals, educationsits, economists, scientists, doctors, engineers, technicians etc. who will work to bring about Islamic renaissance.”44 After necessary training, they would spread to other parts of the Islamic world “to serve their co-religionists and create awakening among them eventually resulting in the creation of a solid, cohesive bloc – a third bloc – which will be neither communistic nor capitalistic but truly socialistic based on the principles which characterized Caliph Umar’s regime.”45 In a message of to the NWFP Students Federation on April 4, 1943 he said: “You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the greatest message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”46

Again in April 1943, Abdul Waheed Khan, a member of the All-India Muslim League, addressed a letter to the Quaid and requested him to clarify the object of Pakistan in his presidential address at the session of the Muslim League which was due to be held in the next few days. In his own view this object was not only to free the Mussalmans of certain parts of India but to liberate Islam, its traditions, its systems of law and above all, its social and economic order. Islamic rule means the Kingdom and sovereignty of God, and not of Mussalmans over the non-Muslims.47 The Quaid in his speech on April 24, at Delhi said: “Please substitute love for Islam and your nation, in place of sectional interest.”48 He held out a firm assurances that the government of the proposed state of Pakistan would be democratic and people’s government” and its constitution will be framed by the Millat. He believed that “democracy is in our blood. It is in our marrows. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold.”49 As regards the social and economic order in an Islamic state, he was clear and forthright, “Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam…There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is the aim of Pakistan….If that is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it.”50 Touching upon the question of minorities he ruled out all “intentions of domination”. ”Minorities”, he said, “must be protected and safeguarded to the fullest extent….Our Prophet has given the clearest proof that non-Muslims have been treated not only justly and fairly but generously.”51

At the Karachi session of the Muslim League in December, 1943, Nawab Bahadur Yar Jang, whom the Quaid-i-Azam held in highest esteem, said: “There is no denying the fact that we want Pakistan for the establishment of the Quranic system of government. It will bring about a revolution in our life, a renaissance, a new Islamic purity and glory.”52 In his concluding remarks he said that Islam was the bedrock of the community. “It is the Great Book, the Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India”. He said, “I am sure that as we go on, there will be more and more oneness – one God, one Book, one Qibla, one Prophet and one nation.”53

The Holy Quran was the Quaid’s source of inspiration and his guidance. It sustained him in the darkest moments of his life. “Why should we worry or be dejected,” he once told Mian Bashir Ahmad, “When we have got this great Book to guide us”54. “Its teachings”, he added, “are not restricted to religious and moral issues, it is a comprehensive code of life. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code”, he said on later occasion, “it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the rights of all to those of each individuals; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come.”55

Addressing the students of Islamia College, Peshawar, he categorically announced: “The League stood for carving out stages in India where Muslims are in numerical majority to rule here under Islamic law.”56

On the eve of the inaugural session of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Islam at Calcutta in November, 1945, Maulana Ghulam Murshed, the Imam of Badshahi Mosque, Lahore, met Quaid-i-Azam and received a definite assurance from him that the injunctions of the Holy Quran alone would be the basis of law in the Muslim state.57 In a letter to the Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif in November 1945, the Quaid said, “it is needless to emphasise that the Constituent Assembly which would be predominantly Muslim in its composition, would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not inconsistent with the Shariat laws, and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the unIslamic laws.”58 In a meeting with Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in June 1947, the Quaid assured him that an Islamic constitution would be implemented in Pakistan.59

It may perhaps be said that all these assurances or pronouncements of the Quaid belong to a period before the emergence of Pakistan. It may, therefore, be argued that it was scarcely anything more than a familiar device, on the part of a politician who used Islamic vocabulary to bring the maximum number of Muslims in the fold of the Muslim League.60 This line of reasoning is supported by assertion that the Quaid dropped all references to Islam and Islamic state in his post Independence speeches. Sir Parkas, the first Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, tried to strengthen this view by reporting a conversation between himself and the Quaid-i-Azam soon independence. “I know”, he reportedly said to the Quaid, “that Partition has been effected on the basis of differing religions. Now that this has taken place, I see no reason why stress should be laid on Pakistan being Islamic State…At this he (Quaid-i-Azam) said that he had never used the word ‘Islamic’.61 This fanciful story stands clearly discredited in the face of numerous post-independence speeches of the Quad. Indeed, he was even more forthright on the subject of loyalty to Islam and its principles.62

The fact is that even after the creation of Pakistan, the Quaid became more vocal and persistent for adopting Islamic way of life and system of government in Pakistan. Outlining the purpose of the creation of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam said in a speech to the officers of the Defence Service on October 11, 1947 that the establishment of Pakistan was only a “means to an end and not the end in itself. The idea was that we should have a state in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find freeplay”.63 Addressing a public meeting in Lahore a few days later, he described the circumstances in which Pakistan came into existence. Consoling those who had been subjected to inhuman brutalities as a result “of a deeply laid and well-planned conspiracy” on the part of the enemies of Pakistan, he gave them the hope that this was but a temporary setback. He assured them that “if we take inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quran, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours.” He advised that everyone “to whom this message reaches must vow to himself and be prepared to sacrifice his all, if necessary, in building up Pakistan as a bulwark of Islam. Do not be afraid of death…Save the honour of Pakistan and Islam.”64

In January, 1948, at a reception on the occasion of the Holy Prophet’s birth anniversary, he declared that “he could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and made propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat”. He reminded his audience that “Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 year ago”.65 Paying his humble tributes to the Holy Prophet he said: “not only has he reverence of millions but also commands the respect of all the great men of the world… The Prophet was great teacher. He was a great law-giver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. No doubt there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam.66 “Islam is not a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulated his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like….In Islam there is no difference between man and man. The qualities of equality, liberty and fraternity are the fundamental principles of Islam.”67

Speaking on a reform scheme at Sibi Darbar on February 4, 1948 remarked:

In proposing this scheme, I have had one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rule of conduct set for us by our great law-giver the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles.68

In a broadcast talk to the people of Australia, on February 19, the Quaid spoke of the Islamic characteristics of Pakistani society in these words:

The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). We are the members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, dignity and self-respect. Not only are most of us Muslims but we have our own history, customs and traditions and those ways of thought, outlook and instinct who go to make up a sense of nationality.”69

In a similar talk to the people of the United States of America in February 1948, he spoke of Islamic system of government to be adopted in Pakistan.

The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today they are as applicable in actual life s they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to every body. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan.70

Now we can certainly say that the Quaid was neither a secularist nor a socialist nor an admirer and up-holder of western or modern democratic system of government. Instead, he was a great Muslim. He believed in Islam and its democratic system of government.

But what is Islamic democracy or Islamic system of government, after all? Islamic democracy is actually a system of government in which sovereignty belongs to Allah the affairs are conducted by elected Caliph or a Head of the Islamic state according to Shariah with the help of an advisory Council (Majlis-i-Shura). The Public opinion is respected and honoured but Shariah prevails in each and every matter of Islamic state. It can be further elaborated in the words of the Quaid.

Fundamentally, in an Islamic state, all authority rests with Allah, the Almighty. The government business is conducted according to the entire Quranic principle and injunctions. Neither a head, nor a parliament, nor an individual, nor an institution can act absolutely in any matter. Only the Quranic injunction control our behaviour in society and politics. In other words the rule of Islamic democracy is indeed the rule of Shariat laws.71

The Quaid did believe in Islamic democracy, and not in theocracy which had no concern with Islamic democracy. While introducing Pakistan to the people of Australia he had categorically remarked, “But make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it."72

Theocracy indeed both as a concept or a system is purely a western product.73 Not to speak of Quaid’s views in this respect, even the scholar of the calibre of Maulana Maududi does criticize the concept of theocracy and denies its existence in Islamic system of government.74

Furthermore the Quaid launched the Pakistan movement simply and purely on the basis of Islamic ideology. But some of the critics also maintain that Quaid never used the term Pakistan ideology in his speeches and statements. On the contrary, the fact is that the Quaid was very much the exponent of Pakistan movement days, he maintained: “Our religion, our culture, and Islamic ideals are our driving force to achieve independence.”75 Addressing the All-India Muslim League session at Madras in 1941, the Quaid said: “The ideology of the League is based on fundamental principle that Muslim India is an independent nationality.”76 Similarly in a message to the Frontier Muslim Students Federation (June 15, 1945) the Quaid spoke thus: “Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim ideology which has to be preserved.”77

The fact is that whenever he happened to define and explain Pakistan’s aim and objective, he often used the terms “Muslim Ideology”, “Muslim League” which later came to be known as Pakistan ideology which is simply the result of evolutionary historical process in which things, words and terms may adopt different forms with different meanings, when in any historical process of events, episodes and revolutions mostly take their name after their actual occurrences in history. The terms of the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution came into use only after the revolutions, actually took place (respectively in 1798 and 1918), and not before that. So the term “Pakistan Ideology” is definitely the product of history and not the handiwork of any particular group or party as is maintained by the critics.”78

Nevertheless, the Quaid was a great exponent of Pakistan ideology which he equated to Islamic ideology. He fully understood Islam and its teachings, traditions and principles of toleration, social justices, democracy, equality, fraternity and polity. He believed in its utility and practicability in modern age. But he maintained that the Islamic principles could not be fully realised without a state. So during the Pakistan movement days he often spoke on such lines: “We want a Muslim homeland wherein the Muslims will be free to chose their own government and conduct their affairs according to their own tradition and genius, deriving inspiration from the fundamental principles of Islam based on brotherhood, equality and fraternity of man.”79

And that Muslim homeland – Pakistan – was achieved on the basis of Islamic ideology. The Quaid was happy and proud of that most brilliant achievement which he always saw in terms of Islam. In his speeches and statements, he often proudly pronounced Pakistan as the “biggest Islamic state,”80 He wanted to build it up as a “bulwark of Islam.”81

Now in the light of above discussions we can safely conclude that the Quaid really wanted to establish Islamic democratic system in Pakistan. His vision was very clear in this respect.82 Unfortunately, his untimely death in September, 1948 hardly a year after the establishment of Pakistan, did not allow him to achieve his cherished aims. Otherwise, he was definitely determined to make Pakistan purely an Islamic welfare state. His bonafides could not be suspected. He was a man of character and integrity. Throughout his life, what he said he meant it – a fact which could not be denied even by his greatest opponent, M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948), who had certainly the highest regard for Quaid’s single-mindedness, his great ability and integrity.”83

But it is matter of great regret, that critics like Justice Munir and S.R. Khairi could neither understand Quaid-i-Azam nor they could comprehend Islam, otherwise their approach to the subject under discussion would have been certainly positive one.

Notes and References

The remarks read, “Few individuals after the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Jinnah of Pakistan (New Delhi, Vikas Publications, 1985, p. vii). But strangely enough, Wolpert, speaking in the same breath, mars the value of these remarks by remarking the Quaid as an enigmatic personality like Gandhi (Ibid.), which is absolutely a wrong thesis. Weigh him by any standard of historical criticism, the Quaid will stand as a just, straightforward and far-sighted statesman and not a complicated and enigmatic politician as Wolpert maintains. “Jinnah was not as complex a character as it is made out” S.R.Khairi; p. xv (Full reference under Foot Note No. 5).

Fateh Naseeb Chaudhri, Quaid-i-Azam Ka Taswwar-i-Mumlukat-e-Pakistan (Lahore, Pakistan Study Centre, Punjab University, 1985) pp. 13-14; Also see Prof. Waheed uz-Zaman, “The Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan”, The Pakistan Times, August 14, 1979, p, iii: “The Quaid’s speech”, remarks Prof. Waheed-uz-Zaman also, needs…to be read in the context of the prevailing political situation which vitally affected not only the security but even the continued existence of the nascent state of Pakistan. Since a climate of total insecurity prevailed on both sides of the border and one of the greatest mass migrations in the history of mankind had had already started, such an assurance to the non-Muslims of Pakistan was urgently called for. It would, the Quaid hoped, not only stop the exodus of Hindus from Pakistan but would also have salutary effect on Indian leaders and persuade them to extend similar treatment to the Muslim minority in India.

Speeches as Governor-General, op cit.. p. 8.

Ibid., pp. 8-9.

Al-Quran, II, 256.

Al-Quran, XXII-40.

Abu-Daud, the Book of Jihad cited by Abdul Ala Maududi, in his books, Islamic Law and Constitution (Lahore, Islamic Publications, 1960), p. 300.

Ibid., p. 89, The Works of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: The Formative Years 1892-1920 (Islamabad, Chair on Quaid-i-Azam, Quaid-i-Azam University 1996) pp. 297-302.

And during the Pakistan Movement days, he had developed a special interest in the historical literature of Islam. According to M.S. Toosy, he had in his library book on Islamic history, life of the Holy Prophet, and other great men of Islam, and translations of the Holy Quran. He had studied English translations of Al-Farooq (Life of Caliph Umar), which was written by Maulana Shibli Normani and translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan. He wanted to read the second part of this book dealing with administration and reforms of the Caliph Umar but its English translation was not available.

Khurshid Ahmad, Western Fundamentalism, Khurshid Ahmad has critically examined the concepts of theocracy and fundamentalism. To him these concepts are the product of the West. Such concepts have no place in Islam.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, though brought up in two different environment, yet both of them, greatly influenced the Muslim nation. The Quaid fought on the political front to safeguard the Muslims from the British and Bania hegemony. Maulan Thanvi dedicated his life to reform the Muslim society. It is interesting to note that both of them never met each other yet they had so much in common in their personal traits, political ideals and thinking.1

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi was born in 1863 in Thana Bhawan (U.P.). He was educated at Darul Uloom, Deoband. He did not participate in the Khilafat Movement. He also opposed the Non-Cooperation Movement. He even asked the Muslims not to join Indian National Congress. An erudite scholar, he wrote a number of books on Islam. He died on 20 July 1943.

Before discussing their identical political ideals let us have a look at some of their personality traits which they shared. When we go through the Malfuzat of Maulana Thanvi it becomes evident that he laid great stress on obligations towards humanity (). He asked his followers, time and again, to pay more attention to the rights of the people. Maulana Thanvi was of the view that a prompt reply to anyone’s letter was a part of good human behaviour. It is quite interesting to observe that both the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi remained awfully busy from dawn to dust yet they considered it their religious and moral obligation to send a prompt reply to the letters addressed to them.

During the Pakistan Movement the Quaid received hundreds of letter from all over the subcontinent written by various persons ranging from leaders like M.K. Gandhi, S.C. Bose, Rajendra Prasad,, Motilal Nehru, A.K. Fazlul Haq, Allama Raghib Ahsan, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal to ordinary students and political workers discussing important national issues of the movement and seeking his expert advice and guidance even in personal matters.

The Quaid, like Maulana Thanvi, considered it his moral obligation to send a prompt reply. Once while talking to Altaf Husain, Editor, Dawn, Delhi, he said, “When I receive a letter from anyone it becomes my moral obligation to open it and reply.”2

The Quaid has no spare time to write long replies so he was always brief and to the point. Like Maulana Thanvi, the Quaid was very prompt in replying the letters. He did not keep others waiting. Once Mrs. Ayesha Ahsan wrote to him from Patna on 28 May 1942. To this the Quaid replied on 4 June. The distance between Patna and Delhi must be kept in mind.

Similarly Maulana Thanvi used to check his dak daily after Zuhr prayers and would spend his time in replying the letters. He was of the opinion that a certain Hadees which contains the words included the meaning of promptly replying to letters.3 It was his practice to send a reply the same day. Usually he would not use a separate paper but would reply on the sides of the same letter thus saving his time as well as his papers. He received a large number of letters but he never put off the reply to the other day.

Once he said: “I try to pen down the reply the same day, whatever the number of letters might be. Yesterday I replied to fifty-one letters.”4

He wrote brief, simple and to the point. It is no exaggeration to tell that Maulana Thanvi replied to thousands of letters.

The political adversaries of the Quaid have maliciously dubbed him as cold, emotionless and what not. But strangely enough if one peeps into his life one finds the Quaid an entirely a different person. The Quaid possessed a great sense of humour and he displayed it wherever he may be; on the dining table, in the courts, in the imperial Legislative Assembly, in the company of the friends, students and colleagues. It was not confined to any place or with any person. Here are few examples. There was an ill-mannered judge who was notorious for his bitter remarks. Once during the hearing, he ironically remarked, “Mr Jinnah you should at least respect me for my grey hair.” Outcome the reply: “Allow me to say, My Lord, I have not been taught to respect grey hair if there is no wisdom beneath them.”

While speaking on the Indian budget in the Imperial Legislative Council the Quaid said: “This budge is merely an eyewash.” The English Finance Member replied: “An eyewash is good for sore eye”. The Quaid retorted: “But what about those who have no eyes at all.”

While on a visit to his “Muslim Arsenal”, the Aligarh Muslim University, the Quaid was told that a student Mohammad Nouman was a very fine artist of mimicry who could impersonate and talk or make a speech with all the mannerism of his subject. The Quaid was told that he could also impersonate him to such a degree that if he had spoken behind a screen without being seen, the audience would have taken him to the Quaid. The Quaid sent for the boy who took ten minutes to prepare himself. He tuned up, dressed in Sherwani, a Jinnah cap and a monocles. The voice, the words, the gesture, the look on his face everything, appeared like the Quaid-i-Azam. The Quaid was very much pleased with the performance. When it was finished the Quaid took off his own cap and monocle and presented it to the student saying, “Now this will make it absolutely authentic”.

At his Press Conference at Delhi in July, 1947 a correspondent asked him: “will Pakistan be a theocratic state?” The Quaid inquired “What is a theocratic state?” Another correspondent replied. “A state run by the Maulvis.” The Quaid reported: “What will you call a state run by the Pundits”, referring to Pundit Nehru who claimed to be the head of the Executive Council of the Governor-General.

One day M.K. Gandhi was busy in his Prarthana in his Shivgram Ashram when a snake entered the Ashram. M.K. Gandhi kept himself busy with his Prarthana. The snake took a round of the hut and quietly went away. The Hindu newspapers unduly publicized the event attributing it to Mr. Gandhi’s miracle. A correspondent came to Quaid and asked his comments over the incident. He very seriously heard the whole story and remarked “yes professional etiquette.”5

Once the Quaid was travelling from Mysore to Otacomand. On his way he decided to take tea at a certain railway station. When he came out of the saloon a large number of people gathered around him. When his secretary drew his attention to the pushing and shoving at the platform he smiled and said; “Don’t worry it is a storm in tea cup. It will end soon.”

Some of the above mentioned examples belie the callous claims of those who called the Quaid “cold and emotionless.”

Similarly Maulana Thanvi was known to be very strict. Actually, he had laid down certain rules according to which he conducted his daily life. He not only himself practiced these rules but expected others to follow. Because of his strict observance of such rules a general impression was created among the general public that he was cold, haughty and .

Maulana Mohammad Ali was a great expert at nicknaming persons. Once he wrote about MAO College Aligarh that “these days our principal is Archbold and our Secretary is Archweak” referring to Nawab Mohsinul Mulk. Likewise he had some quarrel with Mr. Shephered, the Editor of the Times of India. He, is an article, wrote that there are many sheep without any Shepherd but he is Shepherd without a sheep. Keeping in view the general impression about Maulana Thanvi, Mohammad Ali Jauhar once asked Maulana Daryabadi: “how is our .6 One can enjoy this brief sentence if one keeps in mind that Ashraf Ali was born at Thana Bhawan.

Strongly enough if we have a glance at Maulana Thanvi’s Malfuzat we come across hundred of example to prove that he was not what he has been portrayed. Like the Quaid, he was full of humour and wit. Maulana Abdul Jabbar once asked him whether Huqqa would be available in paradise. He promptly replies yes but you will have to go to hell to bring fire from there.

Once in a meeting Maulana Thanvi was told that in a certain locality and feud over a mosque was going on between the Hindus and the Muslims. When he was informed that a Muslim by the name of Jamaluddin was taking sides with the Hindus he abruptly said, “he is not Jamaluddin rather .”

His Khadim Niaz informed him about the birth of his son and asked him to suggest a name. Maulana Thanvi proposed the name Ayyaz for the boy. After two or three years he again requested Maulana Thanvi to suggest some name of his second son properly rhymed with Niaz & Ayyaz. He said only one is left and that is Payaz (onion).

Once Khawaja Azizul Hasan Majzoob came to Thana Bhawan for a brief stay. On his departure he wanted to present some nazrana to Maulana Thanvi. But as the upper pocket of his Achkan was somewhat tight he took some time to pull out the money. Maulana Thanvi who was closely watching this said: “Just pull off your Achkan and give it to me. I myself will take out the money from it.”

Another personality trait which they shared was their abhorrence of use of big titles and honorifics. It is reported that once among big crowd someone raised a slogan “King of Pakistan”, the Quaid at once asked that gentleman to refrain from raising such slogans. The Aligarh Muslim University decided to confer an honorary degree of Doctor of Law on the Quaid. When Dr. Ziauddin conveyed this decision to him, he wrote:

I have most reluctantly to say that I have lived as plain Mr. Jinnah and I hope to die as plain Mr. Jinnah. I am very much averse to any title and I will be more happy if there was no prefix to my name.”7

Like the Quaid, Maulana Thanvi was also averse to use big titles prefixed with his name. He also disliked such titles as Shaikhul Hadees, Shaikhul Tafseer and Imamul Hind. Once he said that although our teachers were the embodiment of but for them no such titles were used. At the most they were called Maulana otherwise Maulvi was the most common word to address them.”8

On another occasion he opined that just to gain cheap popularity many novel titles are being used such as Tutee-e-Hind, Sher-e-Punab and Bulbul-e-Hind. The Almighty has made them human beings but they feel proud in being called animals. It looks after sometimes they would like to be called a Khar-e-Hind, Feel-i-Punjab or Asp-e-Hind.9

Both of them were very careful about financial matters. They knew that the Indian leaders were often accused of misappropriation of funds. They were very careful regarding chanda collection. The Quaid used to receive himself a money-order of rupees two.

As mentioned earlier, the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi did not have any face to face meeting. But it is on record that they exchanged letters. On 15 September 1938 Maulana Thanvi said: “That during the League-Congress negotiation I wrote a letter to the President of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah, stressing upon him that the final settlement must include the religious rights of the Muslims. I also asked him to consult the Ulema about religious matters. He very politely assured me to follow my suggestion.”10

The Quaid was much pleased with Maulana Thanvi for his support to the AIML. In a letter to Maulana, the Quaid informed him that he had “noted down all the suggestions very carefully and assured him to consult him at the proper time.”

A letter of Maulana Thanvi is preserved with the National Archives of Pakistan11 which is testimony to the fact that Maulana Thanvi, had a great regard for the Quaid. Maulana Thanvi keeping in view Quaid’s other pre-occupations, very frankly asked him not to reply his letter. He prayed to Almighty to make Jinnah a source of strength for the Deen-e-Islam. He asked Quaid’s permission to convey to him any useful suggestion which might come to his mind and finally he wrote.

The words themselves speak of the love and affection which Maulana Thanvi had for the Quaid.

As mentioned earlier Maulana Thanvi disliked students’ and teachers’ involvement in politics. He was of the view that both the teachers and the students should only devote themselves to their studies. From his Malfuzat one gets the impression that there were very few political discussions in his Khanqah. Even newspapers entry was banned there. Strangely enough, his political ideas and his general view of the political situation in India so much resemble with that of the Quaid. Starting from the Khilafat Movement down to 1943 Maulana Thanvi had amazing political like-mindedness with the Quaid.

As is well-known the Quaid did not participate in the Khilafat Movement so did the Maulana Thanvi. Maulana Thanvi did not like Gandhi’s participation in the Khilafat Movement so he issued many Fatwa asking the Muslims to keep away from the Movement. For this he was abused, threatened with dire consequences but he never faltered. When the Non-Cooperation Movement was in full swing many people asked Maulana Thanvi about the government service. He advised the Muslims first to arrange some alternative job then forsake the government service. He was of the view that by resigning the government service the Muslims would plunge themselves more in financial troubles.

Amazingly the same suggestion was given by the Quaid as late as January 1943. When a Khaksar attacked the Quaid, Ehsan Ghani, a former I.G. (Prisons) whote to the Quaid offering his services by giving up his job. The Quaid appreciated his spirit but advised him to continue his job.

With the passage of time Maulana Thanvi came closer to the AIML. He sent many deputations to attend the AIML sessions. In 1938, a four-member delegation including Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanvi and Shabbir Ali, was sent to attend the Patna Session. The delegation met the Quaid and conveyed to him Maulana Thanvi’s message. In the open session Maulana Zafar Ahmad read out Maulana Thanvi’s seven page message to the League which was also published in daily Asr-e-Jadeed of Calcutta on 4 January, 1939.

It was Congress rule (1937-1939) which brought the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi closer mentally than ever before. The Congress after coming into power made Urdu language its main target. Both the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi condemned the Congress for its anti-Urdu move. Maulana Thanvi issued a fatwa declaring the protection of Urdu equivalent to that of the protection of Deen.

The Congress, through the Wardha Scheme tried to liquidate the Two Nation theory. The scheme aimed at the creation of a nation of believers of joint Nationalism. The Working Committee of the AIML met at Bombay on 2 July 1939 under the chairmanship of the Quaid to review the scheme. The Working Committee adopted a resolution totally rejecting the scheme. According to the League the ultimate object of the scheme was to gradually destroy the Muslim Culture.

Maulana Thanvi also strongly criticised the Wardha Scheme and termed it as “poisonous for Muslims” religious life. He condemned the basic philosophy of the scheme such as Ahimsa.

Both the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi vehemently condemned the Congress for forcing the Muslims to recite the Bande-Matram.12

The Quaid over and again tried to remove the misconception that Muslims were an independent nation having their separate religion, culture and way of life. This is very interesting to note that Maulana Thanvi fully endorsed Quaid’s view about the Muslim Nationhood.

Recently Maulana Vakil Ahmad Sherwani, in his journal As Sayana has reproduced some unpublished Mulfuztat of Maulana Thanvi. In one of the Malfuzat Maulana is reported to have said that “Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah has very rightly said that as the Hindus and Muslims are not one nation, so the question of rights of minority and majority does not arise. The Hindus and Muslims are two nations so both of them should be given equal rights. It is true that both the nations have been living side by side for centuries, which does not mean that they are one nation. The reason, which did not come to my mind earlier, is that Ahlesabt (the Pherohian) and the Qibti (Capt) the Bani Israel lived in the same country but the Almighty did not call them as one nation instead it said meaning truly that the Qibti were the, a different nation. So the Quran testifies that by residing in one country the Two Nations do no loose their identities and separateness.”13

About Pakistan once he remarked that

It is very important while most of the Ulama of Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind supported one nation theory of the Congress and opposed Quaid’s theory that Muslims are a nation according to any definition of term, it is very pertinent to see Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi advocating the cause of Muslims as a nation. Thus both the leaders agreed on the issue of Two-Nation Theory in the Indo-Pak subcontinent.